About your Search

20130417
20130417
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4
with their financial affairs, the v.a. sends their name to the f.b.i. and they go on a nics list. and all of a sudden that takes away their second amendment right to own a gun. and it says that be in that lives in that house -- so it could be a spouse, it could be a child, it could be an adult child, for that fact -- also cannot own a firearm because the -- the -- the ruling says there can't be a firearm in th the -- in the -- in the residence. clearly, an appropriate determination if a veteran or any other american is found to be a harm to themselves or has a -- a mental disability, that we would all agree should disqualify them from gun ownership. now, let me say for the purposes of my colleagues and for the american people, this is not the standard that we currently apply at the veterans administration. we look at a veteran who's served his country and we say, you can't balance your checkbook so we're going to assign a fiduciary to you to balance your checkbook. you can't own a firearm. think about this. the fiduciary may be the spouse and all of a sudden that name goes to the nics list. why? beca
adjudicated mentally ill by the state of virginia. but those records were never transmitted to the f.b.i. to be included in a background check. and we know that the shooter in tucson fail a drug test -- failed a drug test, a disqualifying fact for somebody to be able to legally purchase firearms given a background check, but that information was never transmitted to the f.b.i., and so the few son shooter was not -- and so the tucson shooter was not prevented from buying weapons, even though he should have been disqualified if the background check system had been working the way it should. i believe the most appropriate response to the recent mass shootings tshootings is to maket our current laws involving mental illness, drug use, mental health adjudications are enforced more aggressively and more efficiently. but, at the same time, while we're trying to find a solution to these problems and not just engage in meaningless symbolism, we should not be making it harder for law-abiding citizens to exercise their constitutional rights under the second amendment. we can and we should embrace r
the d.h.s. or f.b.i. this bill already contains several levels of strong protections to n sure it improves cybersecurity without compromising our important civil liberties. but this bill will add a significant new privacy protection to that existing structure. again, madam chair, you can see the level of effort that we are doing here to protect privacy and civil liberties and still have a workable bill. with states like china, russia, iran, and north korea from getting into your networks and stealing your property. we have yet to find a single u.s. company that opposes this bill. in fact, we have the enthusiastic support of nearly every sector of the economy. because they are under assault from foreign cyberattacks and they need our help. and they need it now. companies and industry groups from across the country, including intel, the chipmaker, i.b.m., the internet security alliance, u.s. chamber of commerce, business round table, tech america, technet, companies of the silicon valley. u.s. telecom, nuclear energy institute, national association of manufacturers just to name a
, including f.b.i. director muller, attorney general holder, secretary napolitano, and my counterterrorism and homeland security advisor, lisa monaco, on the attacks in boston. we continue to mobilize and deploy all appropriate law enforcement resources to protect our citizens and investigate and to respond to this attack. obviously our first thoughts this morning are with the victims. their families and the city of boston. explosionst two gravely wounded dozens of americans and took the lives of others, including a 8-year-old boy. this was a heinous and cowardly act and given what we now know about what took place, the f.b.i.'s investigating it as an act of terrorism. any time bombs are used to target innocent civilians, it is an act of terror. what we don't yet know, however, is who carried out this attack or why, whether it was planned and executed by a terrorist organization, foreign or domestic, or was the act of a malevolent individual. that's what we don't yet know. and clearly we're at the beginning of our investigation. it will take time to follow every lead and determine what hap
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4